Loading...
Transportation Advisory Commission Agenda 11-29-2012AGENDA MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:30 a.m. Academy Room Monticello Community Center Call to Order. 2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 3. Update on Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan (MNSHIP) revisions. 4. Update on Fallon Avenue Overpass. Update on Second River Crossing. 6. Update on West 7th Street Extension (Minnesota to Elm) Feasibility Report status. 7. Consideration of revising meeting dates. S. Added items. 9. Schedule next meeting (tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 24th @ 7:30 AM). 10. Adjournment Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12 3. Update on Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan ( MNSHIP) revisions. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is currently updating its 20 -year State Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP) for years 2013 - 2032. Mn/DOT will use this plan as a guide for funding capital improvements on the 12,000 mile State Highway System (not local or county roads) over this time period. In summary, Mn/DOT is exploring 3 approaches for funding improvements on the State Highway System as follows: Approach A would direct almost all funding to preserving existing infrastructure. • Approach B would provide a small percentage of funding for system expansion and community improvements, but the vast majority would still be designated for preserving existing infrastructure. Approach C would allow for the greatest level of system expansion and community improvements, although even this approach only allows for minimal system expansion and community improvements. From a local and regional perspective, if Approach A is selected the negative impacts would be significant since the segment of Interstate 94 from Maple Grove to St. Cloud includes only 1.6% of Minnesota's Inter Regional Corridor (IRC) mileage, yet under Mn/DOT's current plan this segment of 1 -94 is projected to carry 40% of the congestion on the IRC. As such, IRC mobility needs to receive a higher priority to ensure long term economic viability for businesses in our City, the County, and the State. This would include construction of a third lane in each direction on 1 -94 along this corridor. In addition, the crash and severity rates on I- 94 in our region are already well above the state average and are only likely to worsen without corridor expansion improvements. This corridor of I -94 also serves many beyond our region, functioning as a national artery for the trucking industry in the U.S. with thousands of trucking companies utilizing this corridor. Our hospitality industry also depends on the I -94 corridor as it is the premier gateway for thousands of Minnesotans travelling up north for vacation and recreation opportunities. Mn/DOT is currently gathering public comment for their MnSHIP revisions. Additional infonnation on MnSHIP can be found on Mn/DOT's website located at http:/ /www dot state mn us /plannin statehighwayinvestmentplan /index.html. B. SUPPORTING DATA: MnSHIP Overview and Investment Approaches literature from Mn/DOT website (12 pgs) (CPO CoiEaboor Vis for for Transpsportation 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan vvuai z) rfnnJnlr anu wnaT Uoes It attecrt The 20 -Year Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan 2013- 2032 (MnSHIP) will support the guiding principles from the Minnesota GO vision and link the policies and strategies in the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (www. minnesotagoplan.org) to improvements on the state highway system. The state highway system is a network of roads that includes interstates, U.S. highways, and state highways, and serves automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. MnDOT maintains the state's 12,000 -mile highway system. MnSHIP will guide capital improvements on Minnesota's highways over the next twenty years; it will not affect local or county roads. The 20 -year plan is divided into three periods: • 2013 -2016 - The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (years 1 -4): The STIP identifies projects on the state highway system that MnDOT intends to carry out in the next four years. The investment direction established in MnSHIP will primarily affect projects after the STIP. • 2017 -2022 (years 5 -10): A general plan of improvements and several specific projects will be identified in MnSHIP, though project timing and scope may change. • 2023 -2032 (years 11 -20): Specific projects will not be identified; rather, MnSHIP will set broad investment priorities and develop associated funding allocations. MnSHIP will establish a fiscally constrained investment direction for highway projects from years 2017 through 2032. How does MnSHIP differ from the last plan update? MnSHIP is updated every four years, as required by the Minnesota State Legislature. The last plan was completed in 2009. . Since the last plan update, MnDOT has adopted a risk management approach to decision - making. The current MnSHIP update will incorporate risk management in the following ways: • MnDOT will assess risks across multiple performance levels for each investment category (pages 3 -4); and • MnDOT will solicit feedback on different combinations of strategies that manage risks to the highway system (pages 3 -4). What other factors will shape MnSHIP? MnSHIP must consider a variety of factors that affect the state highway system. System needs exceed projected revenue that will be available over the next twenty years (page 2). In addition, MnSHIP will respond to recent federal legislation (MAP -21) that requires MnDOT to prioritize Oltimprovements on major routes included in the National Highway System. ZaR State and federal requirements, the .. _; Governor, technical experts, and �.. " public opinion will all guide the development of MnSHIP MnSHIP will address regional mobility, among other highway system needs, through its investment liC WWI wuionir investment wiii oe alocated into ten categories that make up five key groups of highway projects: Asset Managemem • Pavement Condition • Bridge Condition • Roadside Infrastructure Condition • Traveler Safety • Twin Cities Mobility • Interregional Corridor Mobility • Bicycle Infrastructure • Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure • Regional + Community Improvement Priorities • Project Support A fixed percentage that is allocated towards delivering projects. What sources of revenue fund the state highway system? Minnesota's state highway system is funded through both state and federal sources. The state also uses bonding authority to finance investments in state highways. A bond is a written promise to repay borrowed money at a fixed rate over a period of time. Where are we headed? MnDOT anticipates limited growth in revenue for several reasons. First, the historic growth in revenue generated through state and federal fuel taxes is slowing due to changes in travel patterns and more fuel- efficient vehicles. In addition, MnDOT will approach its set limit on bonding capacity during the next decade. Around 2020, MnDOT expects to repay more than $200 million per year, or 19% of its projected revenues, towards debt service from bonds. Stair. Pro"rems Over the next twenty years, future revenue is forecast to be approximately $18 billion. The 2013 -2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes approximately $4 billion in capital projects. This leaves approximately $14 billion in projected revenue to invest between 2017 and 2032, the years MnSHIP covers. Will MnDOT be able to address the system's needs? The state highway system's needs have increased since the 2009 MnSHIP update and will continue to grow. Preliminary estimates suggest that the investment needed just to preserve physical highway assets in good repair— without addressing safety, mobility or local issues —would require all projected revenue over the 20- year period. MnDOT's obligation to balance revenue constraints, legislative requirements, increasing needs, and reduced buying Federal Aid Higir wcay Pair #raid tl MtatwYehicla Yebicle Feder es Sates Tax J Registration Tax 9% 21 % lit ks State Trunk Highway Fund power means that MnSHIP must establish the state's priorities for capital investments on state highways. State and federal revenue sources contribute to Minnesota's trunk highway system fund. Percentages reflect an approximated breakdown of the trunk highway fund for State Fiscal Year 2010. How will buying power affect transportation funding? Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices that may lead to a loss in buying power. The future value of current transportation funds will be greatly reduced due to increases in the cost of fuel, materials (such as asphalt, steel, and concrete), labor, and equipment. MnDOT will likely have only half of its current purchasing power in 20 years, which poses serious challenges to the state transportation network. The graphic to the right depicts how expected revenue would be impacted given a 5% inflation rate (the historic capital construction inflation rate over the last decade). The general decline in revenue reflects a loss in buying power over the next twenty years. $1,200 N 0 $1.000 0 $800 $600 d V7 ° $400 $200 W .a $0 irunrc nlgnway ruffub State Fiscal Year ■ Projected Revenue Adjusted for 5% Inflation ■ Projected Revenue in Year of Construction The buying power of projected revenue is expected to decrease over the next twenty years. What is performance -based planning? the next two decades. In performance -based planning, quantitative measures are used to determine how well a given plan will contribute to stated goals. MnDOT uses performance trend data and forecasts to guide investments and operational decisions. For the latest Annual Minnesota Transportation Performance Report, visit http: / /www. dot. state.mn.us /measures /index.html In the last MnSHIP update, MnDOT used performance measures and targets to identify its future investment needs on the state highway system. The current update advances this concept by identifying various funding possibilities in each of the ten investment categories listed on page 1 (e.g., Bridge Condition). How are "Performance Levels" used in MnSHIP? MnDOT has outlined four to five levels of potential funding for each investment category. These varying investment amounts are called "Performance Levels" in MnSHIP Each Performance Level is unique in its investment level, strategy, performance outcomes, and associated risks. Investing at a given Performance Level in one category does not cause the Performance Levels in other categories to adjust. For example, choosing a Performance Level 2 in Bridge Condition does not mean that Roadside Infrastructure Condition must be set at Performance Level 2. MnDOT has estimated the extent to which each Performance Level would meet agency -wide performance targets through year 2032. This Performance Level analysis will help MnDOT and its stakeholders gain a realistic understanding of how the different investment approaches would affect Minnesota highways over How will MnDOT incorporate risk in MnSHIP? MnDOT has embraced a risk management approach in its operations and capital decision - making to proactively identify, clarify, and address risks and opportunities. This approach is intended to protect and create value for all transportation stakeholders across the state. Consistent with this approach, MnDOT is using a risk -based assessment in MnSHIP to both articulate and convey the risks associated with each Performance Level option. The risks at each level vary by their expected impact to the system and the likelihood of their occurrence. How will MnDOT use scenario planning for MnSHIP? As shown in Step 2 of the plan development process (page 4), MnDOT has used both performance measures and risk to define a potential range of investment for each category. This step allows MnDOT and the public to better understand the tradeoffs associated with different Performance Levels. Step 3 of the MnSHIP update involves evaluating investment approaches that use different combinations of Performance Levels from each investment category. Each approach represents a potential way to balance risk and performance outcomes given legislative requirements and revenue constraints. For more information, see the Scenario Planning folio. Ultimately, seeking feedback on the likely outcomes associated with various investment approaches will help MnDOT to establish Approach A Approach C the most relevant investment direction and plan. In Step 3 of WHY MnDOT will produce different combinations of Performance Levels from each investment category to solicit feedback from stakeholders. Approaches A, Approach Its 8, and C are example investment approaches. Colors correspond to the five key groups of (Current) highway projects: • r rnagement • Traveler Safety • Critical Connections • Regional + Community Improvement Priorities • Project Support The figure below illustrates the performance -based and risk -based planning process that the 2013 -2032 MnSHIP update is using. Estimate future I I Identify performance revenue outcomes and risks based on various investment levels INVESTMENT CATEGORY LEVELS + OUTCOMES Investment Level Greater SS$ Moderate S$ E d Risk + Performance Outcomes Mitigates most risk, achieves higher performance Accepts some risk, achieves moderate performance I Accepts greater risk, achieves lower performance _ 7 % f- -, 41=0 i 4W Asset Traveler Critical Regional+ Project Management Safety Connections Community Support* (AM) ITS) ICC) Improvement (PS) Priorities (RC) *A fixed percentage that is allocated towards delivering projects. Group individual performance levels into alternative investment approaches and solicit public feedback Develop fiscally - constrained plan and plan projects based on scenario planning results Identify investment priorities if more or less funding is available EXAMPLE INVESTMENT APPROACHES Approach A Approach B Approach C RCS CC AM - Moderate Investment AM - Moderate Investment AM - Lower Investment TS - Moderate Investment TS - Moderate Investment TS - Moderate Investment CC - Lower Investment CC - Moderate Investment CC - Higher Investment RC - Lower Investment RC - Moderate Investment RC - Moderate Investment PS - Fixed PS - Fixed PS - Fixed MnSHIP will be influenced by feedback from stakeholders throughout the state of Minnesota. Opportunities to participate include: Webinars Meetings - August 27, 2012 - MnSHIP Overview - October 2012 - Stakeholder engagement meetings will take place in - September 10, 2012 - Investment Categories and Scenario Planning I each MnDOT District. - September 24, 2012 - Investment Categories and Scenario Planning II - April 2013 - MnDOT will hold a public hearing on the draft plan. - March 2013 - Briefing on draft plan Look for these additional folios! Investment Category Folios • Pavement Condition • Bridge Condition • Roadside Infrastructure Condition • Traveler Safety • Twin Cities Mobility • Interregional Corridor Mobility • Bicycle Infrastructure • Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure • Regional + Community Improvement Priorities • Project Support Scenario Planning • MnSHIP Investment Approaches For more information, contact: Ryan Wilson, PE., AICP Project Manager, 20 -year State Highway Investment Plan Office of Capital Programs & Performance Measures Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 440 St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899 651.366.3537 ryan.wilson@state.mn.us ­OFTVt www dot.state.mn. us/ planning /statehighwayinvestmentplan/ ®o r. UOC A Coltaborative Vision for Transportation 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan MnSHIP's total revenue will be distributed among ten investment categories. MnSHIP is a fiscally constrained plan, and must balance the needs and risks of each category against those of the others. Each investment category has its own folio describinq the trade -offs of different investment levels. Please see page 8 for a list of investment folios. What is the State Highway Investment Plan? MnDOT is developing its 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan 2013 -2032 (MnSHIP). The purpose of the plan is to provide a fiscally constrained investment direction, linking the policies and strategies laid out in the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan to capital improvements on the state highway system. The MnSHIP update process uses a risk and performance -based 20 -year framework to guide future capital improvements on Minnesota's 12,000 -mile state highway system. What is scenario planning? Scenario planning allows people to look at a range of investment approaches and understand the implications of each. MnDOT has outlined four to five levels of potential funding for each investment category, called Performance Levels (PL)s. Each PL is unique in its investment level, strategy, performance outcomes, and associated risks. Investment approaches illustrated in this folio combine different PLs from each investment category. What will the future investment direction look like? MnDOT has developed, Approach A Approach C three approaches that demonstrate fairly diverse possibilities of how available funding could be divided between the Approach B MnDDT aims to understand public tolerances of and desires for shifting from Approach 8 towards A or C. Investment categories. The intent of showing different investment approaches is to illustrate the range of possibilities, or bookends, for forming the basis of the future investment direction. In the end, it is unlikely that any of the three approaches will be the actual investment direction - rather, it is assumed that feedback will be used to refine existing priorities in favor of elements illustrated in Approach A or C. The three investment approaches illustrated in this folio are: • Approach A - Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) on the entire system. • Approach B - The current investment direction illustrates how MnDOT currently invests, based on the most recently approved statewide investment direction. • Approach C - Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates and increasing investment in mobility, local priorities and non - motorized transportation options. The following three sets of two -page spreads illustrate each approach. The left side of each spread contains highlights of the approach and a hypothetical scenario describing a drive from Winona to Bemidji. On the right, strengths and drawbacks are highlighted, and a table compares this approach to current funding levels and lists major outcomes of the approach. What are major assumptions when choosing an approach? It is important to keep in mind the following items when thinking about the trade -offs associated with the three approaches: • Each approach assumes constant revenue (fiscally constrained); • Each approach assumes the same system size; • If you want to spend more money in one category, you must spend less on another; and • There is no right or wrong answer - each option requires difficult trade -offs across the entire system. Approaches A + C Relative change from Approach B - 26 %4 +2s. -251% +36% Traveler Safety $860 M -38' _ +139% Critical Connections -• $1.3 B ! +17% Regional + Community r8� ,, Improvement Priorities S1.5 B Approaches A + C invest more or less in each investment category, as compared with current investment (Approach 8). Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across the entire system,- reduce investment in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities. Highlights Some highlights of what this funding approach could mean along Minnesota's state highway system in the next 20 years: Existing roads Good ride quality on most state highways, though lower than today on all non- interstates. Existing bridges Less than 10% of bridges in poor condition. Many bridges repaired at optimal point in life- cycle. Few bridge closures. Roadside System upgrades are applied efficiently and approach alignment with life cycle costs. Infrastructure Safety Decline in annual fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways continues, but slows compared to current levels. Interregional Corridor No additional capacity on connections between Greater Minnesota regional centers. mobility Travel times remain similar to today on all but a few roads. Twin Cities mobility Approximately 1+ spot mobility improvements addressed each year. One new MnPASS Lane completed. Bicycle Infrastructure Shoulders are generally in good condition, allowing for a smooth bicycle ride on most state highways. Accessible Pedestrian Few pedestrian safety or access improvements implemented that are not related to Infrastructure complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regional + Community MnDOT addresses regional concerns and collaboration opportunities primarily through Improvement Priorities the priority and timing of bridge and pavement projects. What might Approach A look like 20 years into the tuture r You are making the seven -hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. Throughout your drive, you notice that over half of the roads that you will travel on have good pavement conditions, regardless of whether they are interstates or state highways. This makes for a smooth, comfortable drive. The route to Bemidji from Winona remains the same in 2032 as you remember it from 2012, but the drive through the Twin Cities takes longer due to persistent congestion from the US 52 / 1 -94 interchange all the way to St. Cloud. A bit north of Brainerd, you realize that increased traffic volumes makes passing very difficult on the two -lane sections of MN 371. Upon reaching your destination, you and your friends immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your ride begins pleasantly on a highway with broad and well maintained shoulders, but there is no signage to indicate that you are on a bike trail and you have to pay close attention to where you are to make sure you don't miss the trail's departure point on the far side of the road. When you cross the highway, you feel exposed and unsafe. Later, when the trail again meets up and runs on a low- volume state highway, you are disappointed to find that there is a gravel shoulder. As a result, you ride in the highway travel lane where the road is smooth but there is less of a buffer between you and passing traffic. Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across the entire system; reduce investment in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities. Biggest Strengths • Pavement, bridge and roadside infrastructure condition approaches a state of good repair • The vast majority of roadways are smooth and bridge condition meets national performance targets Biggest Drawbacks • Little to no added capacity across all modes • Limited responsiveness to local concerns INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT cc F >r In orc. Prim 7 Acrassible Pedestrian 1 `.. B,cp.Ie 2te Twin cm's Mi>bdry 3 .— Rity Inh Cu trill nn 86 °0 -36% -25% 2}',c +23r,/'o RC: Regional + Community Improvement Priorities INVESTMENT APPROACH OUTCOMES Group Investment Planned . of or t l 1 approach impacts t 3 2017- 2032 1 3 inv. current 1 Pavement $6,570 M 46% T 2 Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor. Condition Non- interstate principal arterials: 60% (3,470 miles) Good, 11 % (630 miles) Poor. Non - principal arterials: 61% (4,100 miles) Good, 17% (1,140 miles) Poor. Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds met for all a roads. Bridge $3,050 M Condition 21 % _ 3 Principal arterials: 83% (1,278 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (100 bridges) Poor E Non - principal arterials: 84% (1,024 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (114 bridges) >a M Poor Roadside $1,470 M 10% T 2 All very poor ( #4) culverts addressed. Visibility standards met on most signs and Infrastructure markings. Rest areas maintained. System upgrades approach alignment with life a Condition cycle costs. Guardrail, attenuator, + fence systems upgraded to new standards during repairs. Traveler Safety (TS) $640 M 4% �, 1 Total fatalities + serious injuries likely to continue decade -long decline, but at a slower rate. System -wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at 66% of current rate. No investment in standalone projects to address sustained crash locations. Interregional SO M 0% _ 0 Minimal mobility investments. Most corridors maintain performance; mobility on Corridor 4 corridors declines. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns U Mobility continue to occur. `—' Twin Cities $400 M 1 3% 0 Improve 1+ spot mobility issue per year. Congestion likely increases + reliability o Mobility decreases system -wide. One managed lane corridor. Bicycle $250 M 2% _ 1 Current bicycle network maintained due to pavement and bridge investment. Most Infrastructure replaced /reconstructed bridges accommodate bicyclists where appropriate. Accessible $180 M 1% = 1 Investment made through pavement + bridge projects. Few non -ADA pedestrian - Pedestrian safety or access improvements undertaken. Accessible Pedestrian Signals installed C-) Infrastructure at over half of the signalized intersections in the system. Regional + Community $210 M 1% �, 0 Inability to address economic competitiveness and quality of life beyond those Improvement related to system performance targets. No projects selected through statewide Priorities (RC) solicitation process. *. PL =Performance Level. See Investment folios for specific information on each PL funding and outcomes. PLs are independent across investment categories. Focus on bridges and safety; maintain current investment in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities; accept significant decline in pavement condition on low- volume roads. Highlights Some highlights of what this funding approach could mean along Minnesota's state highway system in the next 20 years: Existing roads Good ride quality on a majority of high - volume roads with declining ride quality on all non - interstate roads. Existing bridges Less than 10% of bridges in poor condition. Many bridges repaired at optimal point in life- cycle. Few bridge closures. Roadside Deteriorating culverts may fail and result in frequent/severe flooding. Sign visibility is Infrastructure reduced. Several rest areas close. Guardrail systems repaired but not upgraded. Safety Fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways continue to decline on an annual basis. Interregional Corridor Limited improvements to flow, safety, and mobility on two -lane highways throughout Mobility - the state. Travel times remain similar to today on all but a few roads. Twin Cities Mobility Approximately 2+ spot mobility improvements addressed each year. Two new MnPASS Lanes completed. Bicycle Infrastructure Shoulders are generally in good condition, allowing for a smooth bicycle ride on most state highways. Accessible Pedestrian Few pedestrian safety or access improvements implemented that are not related to Infrastructure complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regional + Community Engage stakeholders in collaborative efforts to identify and prioritize investment Improvement Priorities opportunities on state highways. Several projects funded per year that promote local objectives relating to economic competitiveness and quality of life. What might Approach B look like 20 years into the future? You are making the seven -hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. You notice that the pavement conditions on the interstates and major roads that comprise most of your journey are much better than the low volume roads on which you start and end your trip. The route to Bemidji from Winona is much as you remember it in 2012, although congestion has gotten worse between the Twin Cities and St Cloud. A bit north of Brainerd, you notice that traffic volumes are higher on MN 371, but fortunately there are frequent passing lanes and bypass lanes to allow you to navigate slower moving vehicles. Upon reaching your destination, you and your friend immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your ride begins on a highway and you are disappointed to find that there are cracks and depressions in the shoulders forcing you to keep your eyes on the pavement. You are glad when the trail crosses the highway to depart the right -of -way, but the crossing is unprotected, causing you to feel exposed and unsafe. Later, when the trail again meets up and runs on a state highway, you are disappointed to find that there is a gap in the trail where the shoulder narrows dramatically- at some points, you are forced to ride on the highway itself. e Focus on bridges and safety; maintain current investment in mobility, non - motorized transportation options, and local priorities; accept significant decline in pavement condition on low- volume roads. Biggest Strength *Ability to address highest priority needs across all investment categories Biggest Drawback • Limited ability to respond to growing infrastructure and evolving multimodal needs INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT AM TS CC RC P: 00110 0% 0% 0% n� RC: Regional + Community Improvement Priorities INVESTMENT APPROACH OUTCOMES Project Support 11 °, Access1,da Pe&,trian 1 \ Regional Community Improvement Priorities 10% Bicycle 2% Twin Cities Mobility 6% Tf(1':BiP,I 3; Br,4lr1e condo (t ,n Group of T,�or Afprox Investment direction impacts ee ry invest. 2017- Jiinv. total = to current t Pavement $4,690 M Condition 33% t , __ 1 Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor. Non- interstate principal arterials: 65% (3,750 miles) Good, 13% (770 miles) Poor. Non - principal arterials: 8% (560 miles) Good, 42% (2,900 miles) Poor. a Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds not met on non - principal arterials. E Bridge $3,320 M Condition 23% __ 3 Principal arterials: 83% (1,278 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (100 bridges) Poor Non - principal arterials: 84% (1,024 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 8% (114 bridges) Poor (7 Roadside $990 M Infrastructure 7% _ — 1 Growing umber of unaddressed very g ry poor ( #4) culverts. Some signs and W Condition pavement markings fall below visibility standards. One -third of rest areas are closed. Guardrail systems repaired but not updated to new systems. Traveler Safety (TS) $860 M 6% = 2 Total fatalities + serious injuries are likely to continue decade -long decline. System -wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at current rate. Several sustained crash locations addressed. Interregional Corridor $0 M 0% _ 0 Minimal mobility investments. Most corridors maintain performance- mobility on Mobility 4 corridors declines. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns continue to occur. Twin Cities Mobility $900 M 6% = 1 Address 2+ spot mobility issues per year. Congestion likely increases + reliability decreases system -wide. Two managed lane corridors. Completion of MN 610 to 0 1 -94. Bicycle Infrastructure $250 M 2% 1 Current bicycle network maintained due to pavement and bridge investment. Most U replaced /reconstructed bridges accommodate bicyclists where appropriate. CC Y Accessible Pedestrian $180 M 1 % __ 1 Investment made through pavement + bridge projects. Few non -ADA pedestrian cv Infrastructure safety or access improvements undertaken. Accessible Pedestrian Signals installed at over half of the signalized intersections in the system. Regional + Community Improvement Priorities (RC) $1,540 M 10% _ 2 Ability to capitalize on partnership opportunities. Economic competitiveness and quality of life addressed through partnerships, +design add -ons. Several small- and large -scale improvements per year address needs not associated with performance targets. Project Support $1,580 M 11% _ n/a A fixed percentage allocated towards delivering projects that includes right -of- way, consultant services, supplemental agreements, and construction incentives. H.: *:PL =Performance Level. See Investment Folios for specific information on each PL funding and outcomes. PLs are independent across investment categories. Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates; increase investment in mobility, local priorities and non - motorized transportation options; accept significant deterioration in the condition of infrastructure on non - interstate highways. Highlights Some highlights of what this funding approach could mean along Minnesota's state highway system in the next 20 years: Existing roads Good ride quality on interstates, but pavement condition on the rest of the system declines significantly. Existing bridges Less than 15% of bridges in poor condition. Few bridges repaired at optimal point in life- cycle. Weight restrictions on compromised bridges restrict freight movement. Roadside Deteriorating culverts may fail and result in frequent /severe flooding. Sign visibility is Infrastructure reduced. Several rest areas close. Guardrail systems repaired but not upgraded. Safety Fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways likely to continue decline on annual basis. Interregional Corridor MnDOT makes improvements that improve traffic flow, safety and mobility on the Mobility interregional corridors with the most predicted delay. Twin Cities Mobility Approximately 5+ spot mobility improvements addressed. Two - three new/ reconstructed interchanges. Four new MnPASS Lanes completed. Bicycle Infrastructure Targeted expansion to the state's bicycle network, including improvements on many bridges. Accessible Pedestrian Targeted expansion of pedestrian network. Investment complies with the Americans Infrastructure with Disabilities Act on all signalized intersections and for all curb ramps in system. Regional + Community MnDOT advances economic competitiveness and quality of life considerations through Improvement Priorities partnerships, design add -ons, and several small- and large- scale projects per year that address needs not associated with statewide performance targets. What might Approach C look like 20 years into the future? You are making the seven -hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. You immediately notice that, while the interstates are in good condition, other roads are not; the roughness of TH 52 (a non - interstate route) has patches of poor pavement that makes driving the speed limit uncomfortable and puts significant wear and tear on your car. Although traffic is slow through the heart of the metro, new lanes and some additional interchanges on 1 -94 and TH 10 allow for smooth traffic flow heading into and leaving St. Cloud. Upon reaching your destination, you and your friend immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your ride begins on a highway, and although the road itself shows signs of deterioration, the shoulder is wide, well maintained, and painted to indicate a bike path. Abundant signage alerts you to where you are along the trail. You are pleased to find that the trail's highway crossing is protected by flashing lights and yellow markings that alert traffic to the presence of bicyclists. You also notice that gaps in the trail have been filled, so that no part of your ride is in the highway travel lane. Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates; increase investment in mobility, local priorities and non- motorized transportation options; accept significant deterioration in the condition of infrastructure on non - interstate highways. Biggest Strengths Biggest Drawbacks • Improved safety • Significant decline in the Project condition of most roadways sii`t Promotes mode choice • Increased travel times on more Adds capacity in priority ;,I locations than half of the highway system INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT Two Cities CC Mobility 12% RC: Regional +Community Improvement Priorities +17% +36% INVESTMENT APPROACH OUTCOMES l,ulltl:t l..f. t �r hl... n Road'de Infrastructure Group Investment Planned % of t,,�or Category A prox Investment approach impacts 2017- inv. current 2032 invest. Pavement $3,370 M 24% y Condition 0 Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor. Non- interstate principal arterials: 58% (3,320 miles) Good, 20% (1,150 miles) Poor. Non - principal arterials: 2% (130 miles) Good, 56% (3,790 miles) Poor. a Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds not met on Non - interstate principal arterials or non - principal arterials. E Bridge $2,500 M Condition 17% �, 2 Principal arterials: 78% (1,182 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 12% (182 bridges) Poor o, Non- principal arterials: 79% (952 bridges) Good /Satisfactory, 14% (177 bridges) co Poor Roadside $750 M Infrastructure 5% __ 1 Growing number of unaddressed very poor (#4) culverts. Some signs and pavement a Condition markings fall below visibility standards. One -third of rest areas are closed. Guardrail systems repaired but not updated to new systems. Traveler Safety (TS) $1,170 M 8% T 3 Total fatalities /serious injuries likely to continue decade -long decline. Possible reduction in non - motorized crashes. System -wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at 133% of current rate. Many sustained crash locations addressed. Interregional Corridor $800 M 6% T 2 Improved flow and reliability on 4 high- impact corridors, impacts 60% of IRC delay. Mobility Nearly all corridors maintain performance. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns continue to occur. Twin Cities Mobility $1,780 M 12% .�. 2 Address 5+ spot mobility issues per year. System -wide congestion likely increases + reliability decreases. Four managed lane corridors (1- 35E,1- 94,1- 35W /MN 36). Completion of MN 610 to 1 -94. = III- Bicycle Infrastructure $300 M 2% T 2 Standalone bikeway projects are undertaken, mainly low -cost, high benefit projects (bike lanes, sharrows, route signage, etc.), some bridges, tunnels + 0 separated paths. CE Accessible Pedestrian $290 M 2% T 2 Complies with ADA on all signalized intersections (1,200) and for all curb C5 Infrastructure ramps (20,000) in system. Standalone pedestrian projects are undertaken, incl. crosswalks, sidewalks, curb extensions, refuges, + complete streets elements. Regional + Community Improvement Priorities $1,800 M 13% T 3 Strong ability to capitalize on partnership opportunities. Economic competitiveness (RC) + quality of life addressed via partnerships, + design add -ons. Several small and large -scale improvements /yr address needs not associated w /performance targets , 'V­ y I,JVV IVI I I ,° nra n/a A rued percentage allocated towards delivering projects that includes right -of- way, consultant services, supplemental agreements, and construction incentives. *.'PL = Performance Level. See Investment Folios for specific information on each PL funding and outcomes. PLs are independent across investment categories. There are a number of ways to stay involved and help shape the future investment direction for the state highway system: • Come to the District Stakeholder Engagement Meetings held throughout October, 2012. See website for details. • Send us comments on our website or at the email below. • Look for the MnSHIP Interactive Scenario Tool on the MnSHIP website to submit your opinions on the investment approaches electronically Whatever method you think is best, we hope to hear from you! Look for these additional folios! Overview + Background • Interregional Corridor Mobility • What is MnSHIP? • Twin Cities Mobility Investment Category Folios • Pavement Condition • Bridge Condition • Roadside Infrastructure Condition • Traveler Safety • Bicycle Infrastructure • Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure • Regional + Community Improvement Priorities • Project Support i St E .bloc der 7 1 .bloc echnical ..... MnSHIP t,. . I Investment Direction E F-- Feedback from the Stakeholder and public t GoVefnor input is one of several i factors that will influence Re r� drenients the investment direction i ItAP •21Y set in MnSHIP' For more information, contact: Ryan Wilson, RE., AICP Project Manager, 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan Office of Capital Programs & Performance Measures Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 440 St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899 651.366.3537 ryan.wilson @state.mn.us DO��NNESpp9y0 VCR'it OF Tf, www. dot, state. mn. us/ planning /statehlghwayinvestmentplan/ Focus on meeting infrastructure needs investment in Investment Summary Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure Focus on bridges and safety; maintain (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across current investment in mobility, non- on interstates; increase the entire system; reduce investment in mobility, motorized transportation options, and mobility, local priorities and non - motorized non - motorized transportation options, and local local priorities; accept significant decline transportation options; accept significant priorities in pavement condition on low- volume deterioration in the condition of infrastructure roads on non - interstate highways Biggest Strengths Pavement, bridge and roadside infrastructure Ability to address highest priority needs investment Improved safety; promotes mode choice and adds capacity in priority locations condition approaches a state of good repair: the across all categories vast majority of roadways are smooth and bridge condition meets national performance targets Biggest Drawback Little to no added capacity across all modes; limited responsiveness to local concerns Limited ability to respond to growing infrastructure and evolving multimodal Significant decline in the condition of most roadways; increased travel times on more needs than half of the highway system 2% principal arterial interstate 2% principal arterial interstate 2% principal arterial interstate — 11 % other principal arterials 13% other principal arterials 20% other principal arterials 17% non - principal arterials 43% non - principal arterials 56% non - principal arterials 8% principal arterials 8% principal arterials 12% principal arterials 8% non - principal arterials 8% non - principal arterials 14% non - principal arterials Needs addressed throughout the state, overall Address strategically, manage decline Address strategically, manage decline condition improves Safety (TS) Decline in fatalities likely to continue to decline Decline in fatalities likely to continue Decline in fatalities likely to continue but at a slower rate Minimal mobility investment Minimal mobility investment Added capacity improves flow on regional connections wl greatest predicted delay fYl Oft i I sty ( i Twin Cities ivobiiiiy;('C) Address l+ spot mobility issues per year; one - new MnPASS lane Address 2+ spot mobility issues per year; two new MnPASS lanes Address 5+ spot mobility issues per year; construct 2 -3 interchanges; 4 new MnPASS.-= lanes . Bicycle Infrastructure (BI) Full maintenance of existing bike amenities, but Full maintenance of existing bike Targeted expansion of the state's bicycle - — no additional facilities amenities, but no additional facilities network Accessible Pedestrian Most pedestrian improvements are ADA- related I Most pedestrian improvements are ADA- related Targeted expansion of ped. network, both ADA and non -ADA pedestrian improvements. (AP) Regional + Community Local concerns primarily addressed through priority and timing of bridge and pavement Local concerns addressed through partnerships, design add -ons, and a few Local concerns addressed through '- partnerships, design add -ons; and several Priorities (RC) projects projects per year addressing quality of projects per year addressing quality of life life and economic competitiveness and economic competitiveness How will I Diet a chance to voice my opinion? There are a number of ways to stay involved and help shape the future investment direction for the state highway system: • Come to the District Stakeholder Engagement Meetings held throughout October, 2012. See website for details. • Send us comments on our website or at the email below. • Look for the MnSHIP Interactive Scenario Tool on the MnSHIP website to submit your opinions on the investment approaches electronically Whatever method you think is best, we hope to hear from you! Look for these additional folios! Overview + Background • Interregional Corridor Mobility • What is MnSHIP? • Twin Cities Mobility Investment Category Folios • Pavement Condition • Bridge Condition • Roadside Infrastructure Condition • Traveler Safety • Bicycle Infrastructure • Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure • Regional + Community Improvement Priorities • Project Support i St E .bloc der 7 1 .bloc echnical ..... MnSHIP t,. . I Investment Direction E F-- Feedback from the Stakeholder and public t GoVefnor input is one of several i factors that will influence Re r� drenients the investment direction i ItAP •21Y set in MnSHIP' For more information, contact: Ryan Wilson, RE., AICP Project Manager, 20 -Year State Highway Investment Plan Office of Capital Programs & Performance Measures Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 440 St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899 651.366.3537 ryan.wilson @state.mn.us DO��NNESpp9y0 VCR'it OF Tf, www. dot, state. mn. us/ planning /statehlghwayinvestmentplan/ Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12 4. Update on Fallon Avenue Overpass. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In December of 2011 the City Council authorized staff from the City and WSB and Associates to meet with various stakeholders for the proposed Second River Crossing and Fallon Avenue Overpass projects for the purpose of reviewing the results of the two studies and to gather public input for future consideration by the TAC and the Council. The City Council authorized staff to meet with identified key stakeholders to review and gather input on three approved design options (l, 3A and 5) for the preferred alignment of the Fallon Avenue Overpass. Staff has since met with most of the key stakeholders, and the preliminary results of the Fallon Avenue Overpass meetings will be discussed with the TAC, as will next. steps. B. SUPPORTING DATA: None Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12 5. Update on Second River Crossinj4. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In December of 2011 the City Council authorized staff from the City and WSB and Associates to meet with various stakeholders for the proposed Second River Crossing and Fallon Avenue Overpass projects for the purpose of reviewing the results of the two studies and to gather public input for future consideration by the TAC and the Council. In June of 2012 staff from the City and WSB and Associates met with various representatives from local and regional agencies that were determined to likely benefit from a second river crossing in the Monticello Area. The feedback received at the meeting will be discussed with the TAC, as will next steps. B. SUPPORTING DATA: None Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12 6. Update on West 7th Street Extension (Minnesota to Elm) Feasibility Report status A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On August 27th, 2012, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Feasibility Report for an improvement project to extend West 7th Street from Minnesota Street to Elm Street. City staff and WSB and Associates are currently preparing the report which addresses the location, scope, estimated costs, available funding sources, preliminary project schedule, and determination as to the necessity, feasibility and cost - effectiveness of the proposed improvements. As was discussed at our previous meeting, the proposed improvements include a new 44 -foot wide urban road approximately'/ mile in length with a new bituminous pathway running along the north side of 7t11 Street, similar to the pathway design along East 7th Street. In addition, LED street lighting is currently being proposed along the new roadway segment mirroring the design of the LED street lights along East 7th Street between Cedar Street and the Union Crossing development. These improvements are currently identified in the City's Transportation Plan and are included in the City's 5 -year CIP as a proposed improvement project for 2013 with an estimated cost of $1,250,000. Extending West 7th Street between Minnesota and Elm Streets will complete a vital link in our local transportation system and will provide a more direct connection between East CR 39 and West /East 7th Streets in lieu of West 6th Street. The extension of West 7th Street will also provide an alternate route to Chelsea Road between CR 39 and TH 25, and will complete the frontage road "system" north of I -94, which the FHWA will require before allowing another interchange to be constructed on 1 -94 west of TH 25. Extending West 7th Street between Minnesota and Elm Streets will also allow the adjacent undeveloped properties to be more easily marketed and developed, thereby providing special benefit to these properties which will allow the City to apply special assessments for funding a portion of the improvements. State -Aid funds can be used to pay for a portion of the improvements, and the use of excess TIF funds may also be used to help fund a portion of the improvements. The Feasibility Report should be complete and ready for presentation to the City Council in January of 2013, at which time Council will be asked to accept the report and authorize staff to prepare Plans and Specifications. B. SUPPORTING DATA: Figure 1 — Alignment Option 1 Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda: 11/29/12 7. Consideration of revising meeting dates. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: TAC members are requested to consider revising their regularly scheduled meeting dates to alleviate a scheduling conflict with the Parks Commission as they also meet regularly on the fourth Thursday every other month, although their meetings start at 8 am. This results in conflicts when trying to scheduling meeting rooms so the TAC is being asked to reconsider revising their meeting dates to either the second or third Thursday of the month. No other Board, Committee or Commission meets in the morning of these dates so no conflict should exist if one of these dates is chosen. If the TAC is not able to reach an agreement on a revised meeting date the Parks Commission will be asked to consider revising their meeting date instead. This request is being prompted by the need to update and publish a new meeting schedule for 2013. B. SUPPORTING DATA: None